I am a sports lover; anything from golf to soccer is fair game for me to enjoy watching or participating in. My favorite ones are basketball, football, and baseball (in that order). Honestly, not a day goes by where I haven't heard or seen anything related to sports. I thoroughly enjoy watching all levels of profession, however, college athletics has always been the most interesting to me. A certain allure looms over seeing the level of drive and dedication collegiate athletes put into their respective sports, trying to attain their dreams. When in comparison with professional athletics, the demands for each athlete are largely similar. Comparatively, the NCAA has many more for its athletes to follow. One such pivotal regulation is the fact no student can legally receive benefits, specifically financially. This brings me to the thought that they should be compensated a little more. If they both are completing roughly the same tasks, wouldn't it make sense for similar payment? Now I don't mean handing out multimillion dollar contracts to everybody, but a reasonable increase would not hurt. I have friends who are student athletes at division 1 and 2 schools. Recently I was talking with the one that attends Clemson, and he was explaining to me just how time consuming participating truly was. He said it is extremely difficult managing football practices, classes, training, and homework. I could only imagine because time management is hard enough for the average student. The one that plays football at Appalachian State and the one that plays basketball at Erskine have similar thoughts and feelings.  This is all while only being red shirt freshmen so they have not even played in a game yet. Then you have to add the future pressures of having to perform at a high level consistently which exponentially increases the arduousness of the situation. Hopefully, researching this topic will help open the possibilities of reimbursing the athletes a little more for the effort and sacrifices that are put in to bring enjoyment to the fans. 


The writer of my first article concentrates on a lawsuit that has the potential to dramatically change how student athletes in the NCAA are rewarded for their hard work, effort, and time. The three major pieces of evidence he presents are that a portion of the large amount of revenue generated should go to the players, players cannot profit from others using their image, and the fact that all aspects of scholarship agreements are not exactly kept. Jason Breslow holds the position of digital editor and has covered controversial sports stories such as the NFL concussion crisis. This is important because he has experience when tackling debatable topics with strong opinions attached to each side of an argument. It should also be stated that he wrote the article for Frontline; they are great because they have reliably accurate information on an assortment of various topics. This wide assortment of topics allows for a more level analysis of useful information that can be used in their written accounts. 



The second article explores the notion that college sports programs (particularly basketball) make an absurd amount of money, but none of it ever reaches the ones that put the work in to make it happen. Everyone around the athletes benefit. This is essentially legal exploitation of the talent, time, and hard work of each individual player on the team. Mr. Green brought up the absurd revenue numbers produced in the month of March for the March Madness basketball tournament. Yes that is divided amongst many schools, but that still leaves a large amount of wealth; of which a small amount could still be delegated to the athletes and the rest go to whatever the institution decides upon. Mathew Green's credibility stems from his projected audience that centers around educators in particular. On that basis, he is required to incorporate sound sources to his arguments.  


The last article is my new one; it represents the other side of the spectrum with regards to this discussion. Scott Bordow brought up four valid points for why student athletes should not be paid. The reasons are that they are already paid (scholarships), fairness would require that all receive an amount even if they don't directly contribute, where exactly does the money come from, and corruption in the collegiate system. As I said before, each one of these points is rational, and it is necessary for the negatives in any situation to be presented in order to effectively craft a more desirable solution according to all parties. Scott is a long time sports writer columnist for the Arizona Republic. He has thirty plus years of experience so his opinion should be valued. He views college as a chance for athletes to gain exposure. With that mind set, Scott insinuates that this should be the focus instead of gaining profit since that will come later in the players' journey. In a sense, college is a place to make connections so why should college athletics be any different?  

 My issue is clearly arguable since many believe not another cent should be given while the other side is the complete opposite. This divide leads to many different opinions on how to come to the correct solution. Many of the sources I have found agree that compensation is a step in the right direction, however, an amendable amount is proving a challenge to find. The different perspectives give me the chance to fine tune my own interpretation to craft a more composed one. When I revise my question, I need to determine if pay rates should be dependent upon the sport, the average amount of the fan base that usually attends, and should the pay rate be the same for every member of the team regardless of playing time or performance. I need to find more articles that present actual solutions rather than only potential benefits.  

 
